Thomas Jefferson Quote

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will withinlimits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant'swill, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

by:

Thomas Jefferson(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

Based on this quote, we have an awful lot of "tyrant's will" going on in government. Examples abound.-- Mike, Mount Holly, NC

Rights of the individual, hmmm. There's a concept long lost by liberals and conservatives. They believing that socialism or tyranny (compelled compliance, societal theft, victimless crimes, license, etc.), if applied equally, is liberty unobstructed. Rights are an inalienable faculty of birth, not the democratic issue to a part of the whole. Often here implied and impugned, my rights allowing me to do anything I want, end at your nose reverberates Jefferson's here sentiment.-- Mike, Norwalk

Jefferson acknowledges that our rights are not defined by 'the law' which often is used to subvert the rights of the individual. If an action does not violate another's rights, it is not a crime whether there is a law against it or not. It should be remembered that there is a non-stop barrage of bills brought before Congress every year -- most of which are merely the 'tyranny of the majority' imposing their will and have in fact no substance, no merit, and no constitutional support.-- E Archer, NYC

From the Citizen's Rule Book (http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/1/CRB.htm). "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
'All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.' Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
'When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.'
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
'An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.' Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
'The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.' 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
-- Mike, Mount Holly, NC

One side note - the above won't keep the tyrants from throwing you in jail.-- Mike, Mount Holly, NC

... or stop an armed invasion of your home ... or keep them from killing your wife and children ... or your dog ... or burning you and your family alive.-- Anonymous

Do drivers have the right to drive (or operate heavy machinery or prepare food in a restaurant or fill prescriptions or pilot airplanes or perform surgery or go hunting) under the influence of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, or some other narcotic or pschotropic substance?-- David L Rosenthal

"The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming
advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 9 March 1821)
-- David L Rosenthal

Thank you, Mike-- David L Rosenthal

Driving is not a right, but an entitlement. Being under the influence is a victimless crime. It becomes a crime when the drunk individual violates another's right, such as driving over someone on the sidewalk.-- Joe, Rochester, MI

Driving under the influence is prohibited for very good reasons. It results in many more deaths each year than those caused by gun-related accidents, as well as many more severe injuries. Driving under the influence is neither a right nor an entitlement, but a reckless disregard for life. -- David L Rosenthal

Driving is a right, walking is a right, flying is a right, boating is a right, etc. etc. etc.!!! Driving under the influence is a right. Injuring one while under the influence is a serious crime that should be dealt with by very severe measures.-- Mike, Norwalk

I cannot believe that anyone could be so senseless as to claim that riving under the influence is a right.-- David L. Rosenthal

The title 'Senseless' is carried as a badge of honor by freemen when offered by socialists. Socialists don't have the morality or brain to understand freedom as outlined by a Christian based Constitution. Inflicting the victimless crime (oxymoron), driving under the influence, on an individual that has caused no injury to any person or property or who has imposed no restriction to anyone's right of way violates that person's right to confront his accusers (the arresting officer is at best only a witness, not an accuser), right against self incrimination, right to prescriptive easement, etc., etc. etc.-- Mike, Norwalk

We are bound to the rules of the road because of the agreement we signed when we applied for a driver's license -- which is really only required because insurance companies will only insure 'licensed' drivers. When we get license plates for our car, we grant ownership of the vehicle to the state and we receive a certificate of title that states the title exists and is in the possession of the state. We are 'beneficiaries' to the vehicle which has been put in trust with the state as the trustee -- look at your 'title' and you will see. So, therefore, we must follow the terms and conditions of use for the state's vehicle and the insurance companies that insure it based on those conditions. Truth be told, no one needs a drivers license or license plates, but once you have signed the agreement and placed your vehicle in trust, you must follow the rules. Two people walking down the street and bumping into one another is not a huge liability; however, $20,000 cars travelling 60 miles an hour crashing into things can be very costly -- the liability is often much, much more than the average person can cover. I merely point out the unconsciousness with which we sign away our rights under the color of law. In common law, all of us are responsible for the damages we incur upon others and their property -- whether we can afford it or not. Because we want something for nothing, we sell ourselves to the state and demand rights which we no longer have due to our agreement. Most of our obligations to the state are in this manner -- when we are ready to take responsibility for that, we might be ready to grant some respect to those who have always said they are willing to stand on their own two feet and be responsibile for the normal risks in life. If we were not so eager to sue the pants off each other, we might learn to actually put those so-called Christian virtues to use -- like forgiveness and mutual respect.-- E Archer, NYC

Archer, the one flaw in your statement is that we can sign away our rights. We can not, they are inalienable. If our agreement with a foreign entity, such as a current state, is Unconstitutional, it is void ab initio (it doesn't exist in reality), even if the de facto force will rob you of your property or incarcerate you. If an individual happens to get a drivers license or license plate to avoid further entanglements, such does not void inalienable right, it only furthers the tyrannical abuse. I have chosen not to participate in such immoral and Unconstitutional acts and I've still found away to get insurance to cover my common law responsibilities. Archer, you may make good Buddhists out of us yet. :-)-- Mike, Norwalk

We follow the rules of the road out of personal responsibility and to avoid chaos-- Mike, Norwalk

Where are the rules for walking down the street -- do we really need laws to keep us from walking into one another? Is it the law that keeps us from careening our cars into one another? No. As far as signing our rights away, the right to contract is the number one right the establishment has been protecting. But what backs it up? Our word -- and the force required to keep it. Everywhere we turn we are expected to live up to our word, to keep our promises, and to make amends if/when those promises cannot be met. Our entire legal system is based on this very premise. We have the right to associate -- and most of the rules being enforced in court are based on the agreements we signed when we contracted with others. What is being enforced is our promise. Mike makes an excellent point that we cannot contract away our rights -- also meaning we cannot give away our responsibilities. But various collective groups offer 'protection' (as dubious as it may be) and many sign up for it. However, few read the fine print. When we start taking our word seriously and our signature just as seriously, we will find that most of these 'opportunities' are unavailable to us because we are attempting to give up our rights (and the responsibilities that go with them). If our rights are indeed inalienable from God, then the devil's work is ultimately for naught, for if there is indeed Justice, all would be free. But it seems Providence is willing for us to dabble in fantasy and illusion. The price of our self-deception is high, for who can deny that it is truth that sets us free.-- E Archer, NYC

Mike, nice court citations above -- however, they cannot be used in court as a defense since they pre-date 1938 when the Common Law courts were merged with Admiralty/Maritime and Equity law to create Statutory Law. You are right, but your argument will be stricken from the record in a courtroom today. So it looks like you are drving by the seat of your pants. ;-)-- E Archer, NYC

-- P.M.

Mike, I have a small problem with your term "Christian based Constitution". Christian is a generic term which means different things to different people. Go to several churches with different definitions of Christianity and they will all say that they are right. Perhaps a morally or ethically based Constitution might be better terms. Remember, Jefferson and Franklin were Deists, not Christians, but were certainly moral and ethical.-- jim k, austin tx

Jim, our founding documents were based on natural law and it really isn't fair to base the Christianity of our founders time with the Christian churches of today that have lost their salt for the most part and have taken license from the government. The great philosophers that our founding fathers look to for wisdom when constructing our form of government were those philosophers that ultimately got their wisdom from the Bible.

A lot of great comments here today.

-- Mike, Pleasant Hill

The Rock upon which the Republic rest. Well said Mike, Pleasant Hill. They have lost their salt, and backbone.Murdock v. Penna. , 319 U. S. 105 ( 1943 ) which stated : " A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. " U. S. Supreme Court !Shall we go farther and state the entirety of the Affidavit of Revocation and Rescission. Case by case ? -- Ron w13, Or

" Within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Christian moral codes of behavior. Based on the Law of Liberty and moderation of indulgence. -- Ron w13, Or

Ron, the Federal Constitution does not grant any rights -- the word should be 'protected' not granted.-- E Archer, NYC

Within this blog, the editor, many others and myself have supplied multiple references (quotes, edicts, etc.) demonstrating the de jure States united intended jurisprudence, that being, the individual sovereigns do assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them (a natural law, land of liberty). Tyrants, despots, and other malefactors have dumbed down the populace, reprogramming a once free people to accept their god/man legal positivism. The now occupying statist theocracy infesting this land further violates the once free people with their ever increasing compelled compliance, license, victimless crimes, larceny with impunity (income, property, life taxes, funny money, etc.) and non recognition of inalienable rights.

By way of example, the enslaved sheeple do not understand the difference between law and order. Law is a term that describes the action of being (math, science, physics, etc.,) Order is a system which allows lawful executions without violating another's 'person or property'. Relating to the above conversations; transporting one's self, by what ever means available, from point 'A' to point 'B', or 'B' to 'A' is an inalienable right at law. To avoid chaos, death and destruction, order is implemented by men setting forth such understanding as every one will drive on the left or the right. If driving were against the law (without a tyrant's granted privilege - all free men would be dead) or driving on the left or right was law every body in either the U.S. or the U.K. would be dead. Driving while under the influence is not against the law or everyone that did it would be dead. Driving without a despot's special privilege is not against the law, it is merely driving contrary to illicit canons of the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land.-- Mike, Norwalk

The 'rightful liberty' of Jefferson's here focus was a natural law understanding. The tyrant's law, legal positivism or that which the god/man creates is exposed well as antithetical to rights and liberty. Criminally prosecuting someone for what they may do (even if there is a high likelihood) is a heinous crime, in and of itself. Knowledgeable intent is a variable.-- Mike, Norwalk

Where there is natural 'law' with a de jure 'order' there related = there is liberty. Where there is legal positivism (god/man creates law) with enforced canons = there is tyranny.-- Mike, Norwalk

And for all the David L Rosenthals of the world I end my comments today with: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety (Benjamin Franklin)-- Mike, Norwalk

We have far too many laws on the books that run counter to and usurp, abrogate, and violate this nation's ONLY Supreme Rule of Law .. i.e, the U.S. Constitution. They all should be recognized as "Color of Law" and/or "Fiat Law" and therefore should be declared Null and Void.-- Mary - MI